>> cenk: interesting update on the manhunt here in l.a. for that shooter. turns out he sent packages to anderson cooper and to chris matthews of the i'm checking the mail now to see if we got something. we'll give you more details about that case and we caught fox news on a different lie. we'll tell you about that later tonight on theyoungturks.com when we do a whole different online show. check it out at youtube.com/tyt. "viewpoint" is next. >> john: karl rove is at war with the tea party and as soon as karl heard about it, out of sheer force of habit,'s plied for deference. drones can be use in the case of imminent danger but imminence no longer means imminence. meaning klingons can be called

imminent. >> watching john brennan dodge that question about waterboarding today was nothing short of torture. today is the birthday of the late charles dickens, laura ingalls wilder and chris rock and on this date 48 years ago the beatles arrived in america ushering an era of rock n' roll gratins that lasted until 1990 when rock n' roll died when rolling stone called new kids on the block the new fab five. never forget this is "viewpoint." >> john: geek, i'm john fuglesang. this is "viewpoint." the g.o.p. strategist and commentator once known as bush's brain, they're giving karl rove an aneurysm. oh and dick clark -- dick cavett

is here tonight. dick clark was not available. we'll be joined by dick in the second half of the show. first, the man president obama nominated to run the c.i.a., counter-terrorism adviser john brennan spent quality time with the senate intelligence committee today as they considered his qualifications to become our nation's top spy. he faced tough questions from senators on both sides of the aisle. on the c.i.a.'s enhanced interrogation techniques aka torture, accusations he leaked secret information to reporters and his direction of the not so covert drone war against alleged terrorists. now, before brennan could say much, the hearing was interrupted by code pink peace protestors had a lot to say about the drone war themselves. >> they want you to tell congress what countries we are killing children. >> john: based on what we heard today congress might not be interested in knowing that information. intelligence committee

chairwoman dianne feinstein said despite reports drones have killed hundreds of civilians -- >> the figures we've obtained from the executive branch which we have done our utmost to verify confirm that the number of civilian casualties that have resulted from such strikes each year has typically been in the single digits. >> john: which would make anyone opposed to the drone war killing civilians feel so much better. on the plus side, senator feinstein provided plans to provide oversight of the drone war. >> i also intend to review proposals for regulation -- excuse me, for legislation to ensure that drone strikes are carried out in a manner consistent with our values. and that the proposal to create and an na log of the foreign intelligence surveillance court to review the conduct of such strikes. >> john: it is worth noting a 2012 poll shows americans already think drone strikes are consistent with our values.

nearly four out of five adults approve the use of drone strikes against terrorist suspects overseas. 2/3 suspected using drones to kill american terrorist suspects overseas. so much for due process. oregon senator ron wyden did at least hold out for one constitutional right. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them. >> john: that's a start. brennan was quick to assure the senator and the committee that some people have the drone war all wrong. >> there is a misimpression on the part of some american people who believe we take strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions, nothing could be further from the truth. we only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there is no other alternative. >> john: the c.i.a. also goes through agony to make sure there aren't any collateral injuries or deaths from drone strikes according to mister brennan. on torture mr. brennan who said in 2007 the torture had saved

lives, backed away from the claim and the torture program when michigan democrat carl levin confronted him with similar statements from three bush administration officials. >> we flat out say that those statements are wrong. any basis to disagree with those? >> i do not. >> john: brennan admitted after reading a classified intelligence committee report, he couldn't say anymore that torture had worked. >> now, i have to determine what, based on that information as well as what the c.i.a. says, what the truth is. and at this point senator i do not know what the truth is. >> john: fascinating day and for more on the brennan confirmation hearings, i'm delighted to be joined by p.j. crowley, professor at george washington university, a former assistant secretary of state for president obama and a former special assistant for national security affairs under president clinton. always a pleasure. good evening. >> hello john. >> john: were you surprised so much of today's hearing was used to essentially re-litigate the early stages of the bush war on

terror from waterboarding and other forms of torture to the claims made famous by dick cheney that iraq had some murky involvement with 9-11? >> i confess i was surprised that mohammed atta made a cameo appearance. john brennan is the fifth c.i.a. nominee to come before the committee over the past 12 years. plenty of opportunity to litigate or to write and rewrite history. i think it is -- an indication of the trench warfare that still exists on capitol hill. >> john: i agree. after mr. petraeus, i was glad that nobody asked if he had a girlfriend. mr. brennan was executive director of the c.i.a. from 2002 to 2006. i know you know him. is it credible, as mr. brennan claimed, he had no involvement with the enhancement interrogation program? >> he would not have had any direct involvement in the program. obviously, as you said today he's had his own personal views and obviously he's open to

review the exhaustive evidence that the intelligence committee has put together regarding its eth cassie. >> john: so you're satisfied as deputy executive director of the c.i.a., he had no knowledge that this was going on? >> well, i said, you know, as he said he had a view. he had some knowledge that this was not in his chain of command. he said he had some casual discussions with his colleagues but no indication he offered his advice up the chain of command. >> john: he came out strong against water boarding. the committee pushed him hard on white house stonewalling when it comes to documents and other information. do you think anything will change if he's confirmed or is this a dance they go through every other nominee? >> actually, there has been a little bit of a change already and the committee does have some leverage in terms of getting the white house to be more forth coming with documents. this is not a new issue. i think the congress has been

fighting the white house for a couple of years over the office of legal counsel and its legal rationale for operations particularly the strike that took out anwar al-awlaki. so there is a classified setting that the committee will have with mr. brennan next week and i certainly think that they will continue to lean on the white house to provide more documents. they provided one. but i think as ron wyden said, that's a start but he's looking for more. >> john: given the popularity of the drone war with most americans, do you think the testimony on the issue today helped him or hurt him? >> i think the white house is probably very satisfied with the hearing today. certainly if you compare what john brennan went through today and the reaction from senators in both parties to what happened last week with chuck hagel and his nomination hearing to be secretary of defense you know, brennan claim through i think as a strong, credible witness. it took three hours for the

committee to get through issues regarding the loc memos eit the enhanced interrogation techniques and what it meant to the bin laden raid. and other things to get to what i think is really what most people want to hear which is how do you feel -- what's the nature of the threat that you're going to confront as director of central intelligence, what does recent developments in benghazi or mali or algeria what's that tell us about an evolving al-qaeda. its connection to the core in afghanistan and pakistan and where we go from here. they got to it eventually after exhausting every other alternative. >> john: senator feinstein raised the prospect of raising oversight for the drone war. do you think either is ever to be approved by the congress? >> i'm skeptical. on the one hand, i think that the administration should be more forthcoming particularly after the fact.

tick harley where we do have american -- particularly where we do have american citizens in our sights. the american people need to make sure and have confidence that there's been a rigorous process that put an american on a list. you know, that said, you know, the executive has the responsibility to protect the american people and so i don't know that whether as ron wyden suggested, we roffer an american the chance -- we offer an american the chance of surrender before taking action or whether it's appropriate for a court you know to make what might be military intelligence judgments. i really doubt that the judicial branch will want to take on that responsibility. >> john: i think you're right. sounded good today but i think that's the last we'll hear of it. do you think brennan will be confirmed? >> it was a good hearing for brennan. i'm sure he's satisfied with what happened. i have confidence after another session next week in class fight setting, he will be confirmed by the senate. >> john: p.j. crowley is

professor at george washington university and former secretary of state for public affairs for president obama as well as national security affairs to president clinton. p.j., many thanks. >> pleasure, john. >> john: have a great evening. joining me via skype, one of the foremost critics of the not so secret drone program glenn greenwald, columnist are in the british newspaper the guardian and author of with liberty and justice for some, how the law is used to protect the powerful. what a pleasure to have you with us. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> john: today was a pretty busy day. senator feinstein told the committee according to the information she has from the white house which she said the committee's trying to confirm civilian casualties from drone strikes are in single digits each year. what does your research tell you tell you about that? whatever the government labels the human targets be it terrorists evil combatants, aren't they all really civilians? >> i think you really hit on a key point in that question which

is what the definition of a civilian. what we know is the government statistics are inherently unreliable. that's because, as "the new york times" reported just a few weeks ago, the obama administration has simply on its own redefined civilian to mean any male of military age who was found in a strike zone meaning anyone that we kill who is a male of the age between 16 and 54 we automatically count as a militant or a terrorist without knowing anything about what they've been doing, who they really are. what independent researchers have found by going into pakistan and to yemen and somalia is that there are hundreds and hundreds of innocent women men and children who have been killed by u.s. drones. so dianne feinstein and the obama administration can stand up all they want and say that civilian deaths are in the single digits. the rest of the world and independent facts prove that's a falsehood. >> john: brennan told senator wyden, democrat of oregon, there was a misimpression out there

that drone strikes are used to punish terrorists. i don't know who had that impression but brennan insisted the c.i.a. sends in the drones only as a last resort to save lives when no other alternative is available. knowing what we now know about how they define the word imminent, is any of that true? >> none of that is true. remember that the obama administration has drastically increased the number of drone attacks as compared to what it was even at the height of what the bush administration was calling the war on terror. even government friendly think tanks like the new america foundation have said something like 2% of the drone strikes actually are targeting or end up killing high-level al-qaeda members. what you're really talking about are, at best, people who are low-level members of militias, in countries like yemen and somalia and pakistan who have no intent and certainly no capability to attack the united

states. they're simply people who again, at best, are fighting, again, their own government or other factions within those countries. so what really the united states is -- government is doing decreeing that the president in total secrecy no oversight or due process has the authority to target for execution anyone he wants anywhere in the world and nobody on the planet believes the majority of people we're killing are significant threat to the united states. >> john: so if they're not significant threats to the u.s. and the c.i.a. and the white house know it, why do they continue this campaign? is it because they want to intimidate any potential terrorists or is it because as always, war is big business? >> i think the war on terror has brought not only big business and profit to a huge sector of the private defense contracting industry and to the surveillance state and the intelligence industry, the private intelligence industry, that is true. war also brings immense power to people who wield political

power. 2,000 years ago, cicero said when men take up arms, the law falls mute meaning when there's war, there are no limits on the power that people in government can exercise, the secrecy behind which they exercise that power. so there's always an incentive for people in power to want war to continue. i think the other aspect of it is when you're in the military, you're in the c.i.a. and you've been given the drones and these massive weapons there is an institutional incentive to want to use them even when doing so was unjustified. it is the old cliche everyone with a hammer or sees every problem as a nail. you want to use whatever weapon you have. there is an institutional inertia in the united states the only way we deal with people who are resentful or dislike us is by trying to kill them all so there's none of them left. the real problem is the more attacks we wage and more bombs and drops we drop, the more

people there are who want to attack the united states, we're exacerbating the problem of terrorism rather than solving it. >> john: brennan was also asked if the c.i.a. and white house believed it was possible for the agency to kill a suspected american terrorist in the u.s. as well as overseas. he evaded that artfully. but is that power inherent in the documents you've seen? does the executive claim the right to kill a u.s. terrorist suspect in this country without due process? >> it is a really critical question. the white paper that was just leaked to michael at nbc news where the justice department purported to tell congress about the rationale about why they can kill without due process said they're only the answering the question as to whether or not the president has power in places where capturing accused terrorists is infeasible. but it went out of its way to say we're not saying that the only instance in which the

president has this authority we've been asked if the president has the authority in those places. once you accept the theory on which these documents are base and which government defenders and obama defenders embrace which is we're fighting a war on terror. al-qaeda is an enemy army and that the battlefield is everywhere in the world. the globe is the battlefield. there are no geographical limits or constraints once you accept that, there is no limiting principle to say that if the president decides somebody who is in sweden or britain or ohio or new mexico is a terrorist that he shouldn't have the authority to kill those people without due process as well. the minute you say the president has the power to wage war to kill anyone he accuses of being a member of al-qaeda, there's no way to limit that power to yemen or somalia or pakistan or afghanistan. inevitably to say it is to justify it to use everywhere in the world including american

soil. >> john: just because president obama won't do it doesn't mean president christie wouldn't do it. glenn greenwald a fighter against the u.s. drone warfare campaign, thank you so much for your time and your brutal expertise this evening. >> thanks so much, john. appreciate it. >> john: karl rove is going to use all of his resources to defeat tea party candidates in favor of more moderate republicans. based on his success in the past election isn't that good news for the tea party?

[ male announcer ] to many men, shaving can be a sensitive issue. but take comfort. it may not be you; it may be your razor. upgrade to gillette fusion proglide. our micro-thin blades are thinner than a surgeon's scalpel to put less stress on your skin by gliding through hair. switch to fusion proglide. number one dermatologist recommended on sensitive skin. and now introducing new fusion proglide sensitive shave gel. gillette. the best a man can get.

rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. ♪ making the big romantic gesture. that's powerful. verizon. get a nokia lumia 822 in red for free.

>> john: it is time once again for the thing of the day. tonight's thing the tone-deaf celebrity of the day. where do i begin with this? after just a few weeks after expressing her vibrant support for gun control in the wake of the newtown shooting, kim kardashian tweeted this photo of a designer diamond-encrusted handgun she bought while shopping. i know it is just kim kardashian and no big deal but for whatever reason ms. kardashian has many young fans and with that comes awesome responsibility to be a better role model and put thought into your actions proving that kim kardashian is the political activism what susan b. anthony was to making sex tapes with ray jay. >> with a record of nine wins and 22 defeats, it is karl the establishment rove. and in the even redder corner, the challenger with a record of zero compromise in their conservative positions, it is the don't tread on me tea party.

yes, my friends this week, karl boom boom rove announced the formation of a new pac the conservative victory project which seeks to assist moderate establishment candidates and primary battles against less mainstream tea party back candidates that rove and his donors deem unelectable and/or undesirable. if the 2012 election taught us anything about candidates karl rove thinks are electable the tea party is nearly assured a knockout. joining us now to break down the wrangles within the g.o.p. is making her first appearance, scottie nell hughes. good evening and welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> john: contributor to forbes.com rick ungar. so let's get started. scottie, you wrote a piece today. published a piece titled i love karl rove about his announcement to target more extreme candidates. somehow i detect a whiff of satire. can you explain why? >> considering i just cheered you on when you said that the tea party looks like they have the edge and they're ahead and this is current tv, then you

know there's something going on upstairs because things are not -- the stars are not aligned like normal. just a little bit of sarcasm there. >> john: tell me about the piece. you actually outline why you love karl rove but it is not for the most obvious of reasons. >> roses are red vile ets are blue karl rove saved this country because he united me and you. that's what he did with the tea party and the conservatives. did he something with us even barack obama did not do on election day. we were actually -- we knew that the democrats -- we knew the enemy over there. we didn't know who the enemy was in our own party. thanks to karl rove coming out this week, we know who the wolf in sheep's clothing really is. >> john: i have to bring rick ungar in on this. it is fascinating to see this. brent and mark levine have criticized karl rove's new pac. what do you make -- >> can i say the words i love karl rove just because in my whole life, i never thought i

would get to say them. joan why do you love karl rove? >> i wanted to say it. it is total nonsense. i've never loved him but i'm liking him better lately. >> john: do you give him credit for this schism? >> this is going to be the most entertaining thing we've seen in politics than years. nothing is more important than entertainment. i cannot wait to watch this battle ensue! this is going to be extraordinary. >> john: it is because scottie, karl rove denies he's picking a fight with the tea party. based on his comments, do you believe him? >> of course not. what's amazing is karl's been able to say and do whatever he's wanted. so he came out on monday with this you know, arms up, i'm going to take out the tea party attitude. then he realized the backlash he was going to get. and he realized his friends who were in the conservative movement were going against him. i joke he's like punxsutawney phil. he pops his head up and he's gone back underground. i'm hoping the three ghosts from

a christmas carol might be visiting him right now. he'll realize he hurt the party hurt the movement and we're either going to get rid of him or i guarantee the republican party won't be able to last. >> scottie, i don't want to get between you in this lover's quarrel thing. far be it for me. but i hear, a lot of money's pouring into karl rove today. i hear he's collecting a lot of cash. what are you guys going to do about that? >> first, it is all hear. i can hear fun things but let me say this the difference between a tea party donor and someone who donates to karl rove's pac i'll give him a high-five. he raised $80 million. >> he raised $300 million. >> he gave $80 million. i'm going to do the ones we can confirm where we know where it went. the people that donate to him are the large donors that donate lots of zeros. the people that donate to the tea party are the moms and dads, the hard workers. $20, $50.

>> john: you make a good point, scottie. let me tell you how i think karl rove views this. let me try to go into karl rove's mind with my hazmat suit. karl rove would probably say that you're focused on winning primaries. he's focused on winning elections. he would say that you guys are going to put up candidates who are -- will pass anyone's purity test like sharon ingle, my friend, christine o'donnell mr. mourdock, he will put up guys who could get elected although after last november, i'm not sure he can make that claim. what do you say to that claim that the tea party is marginalizing the party by getting unelectable candidates winning primaries? >> because it is not the tea party. the reason why we keep losing as republicans is because we keep going down the path of we keep nominating moderates and moderates don't win. why are we going to keep trying to sit there and listen to people unfortunately like governor jindal that say we need to move more to the left and become more like the democrats and appeal to all of these demographics. that's what's causing us to lose

elections. let's go back to the ronald reagan years. let's go back to conservatists. what we believe. let's make a clear definition line between republicans and democrats then we can win. i realize it was actually the administration and those advising hip people like karl rove that our coffin belongs to. >> i'm wondering who are the real republicans. listen those guys were kind of their first scottie and you came along. they were more than happy to have you and join the party. so what i wonder is can you both coexist together? will it turn into two different parties? >> first of all, i know those on the left and sorry rick, i know the liberals and all of the democrat strategists while you can say it is entertainment, in reality you're kicking yourselves going dag-nabit, why is this not happening next year or 2013? you want this argument to happen during a primary. so frankly i'm kind of happy

that it's happening right now and we can get -- >> i have to disagree with you. this is just the beginning of it. it think is geared toward 2014. that's when the main bout happens, isn't it? >> no. because i think we'll take care of business real quick. you think by then? >> i think we'll get this worked out because trust me, everybody's on fire. you said it. mark levine, michelle imagine even sean hannity, your favorite over there at fox news mentioned, even put tough questions for the first time to karl rove. >> john: we've got less than 30 seconds left. i'll give you the last question, rick. let me speak on scottie's behalf, why would anyone still donate their money to karl rove? less than 1.75% of american crossroads spending went toward fund-raisers. >> out of all of his races i think he had 30. he won nine. he got creamed. he really did. it turned out to be something like $30 million a race. >> john: it will be fascinating. i can't wait to watch it unfold.

scottie, did you have a good time? >> this is a wonderful debut. you guys are wonderful. >> john: you going to come back with us? >> any time you wish. >> john: news director for the tea party network scottie nell hughes and contributor to forbes.com rick ungar. thank you both for your time and insight tonight. we have america's sweetheart, dick cavett, coming up ahead. that take you inside the headlines. real, gripping, current. documentaries... on current tv.

ahh ! finally, there's cepacol sensations. serious sore throat medicine seriously great taste. plus the medicine lasts long after the lozenge is gone. ahh ! mmm ! cepacol sensations.

>> john: iowa doctors are introducing legislation. state representatives tom shaw of iowa is trying to protect human life. if you're a zygote, faint teenager or -- infant or

teenager who happens for a woman, tom shaw has decide he will decide for you you don't get to decide about your own body. your life may be precious, ladies, you can't control it. the bill defines an individual from the moment of conception until natural death. doctors who perform abortions at any point could be charged with murder and so could the women who seek the procedure. finally, this would do away with the barberrism of a qualified doctor performing legal procedures. this is never going to become law like most pro-life politicians, the iowa republicans are doing this for votes and for fund-raising but these g.o.p. state refs aren't going to stop until they send the midwest back to the middle ages. thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. (vo) she's joy behar. >>current will let me say anything.

>> john: our tweet of the day is about my next guest dick cavett. after i said dick would be appearing on tonight's show, political wizard tweeted you should tell him to stop with all the tweets. now, i actually got mr. cavet to join twitter while i was guest hosting joy behar last september and got him over 6,000 followers in two days. and here's dick cavett's entire twitter feed from that day to this. >> oh, no. >> john: that's right. one tweet from last september asking for food and then nothing. i'm not saying the man doesn't tweet enough. he's the carmic balance for ashton kutcher. if you have a comment, tweet us at "viewpoint" or john fuglesang. you have to be able to spell fuglesang or use the hash tag "viewpoint." for better or worse -- >> i'm so embarrassed. >> john: let me finish my intro, for better or worse, you have to judge me on this, probably better for me and worse for you you hear all the time younger people are getting their news from late monologues like hannity. whether this is a good thing or

not, you have to admit commenting on the news with humor is more engaging and easier to swallow than delivering the rae -- raw facts of the story. no one knows this better than this man who wrote for "the tonight show," went on to host his own legendary show called the dick cavett show. he's been the author of the book "talk show" where woody allen calls him the best talk show host ever. ladies and gentlemen, this is dick cavett. can we hear it, please? [ applause ] >> wow. three men in the studio. >> john: yeah, that's how it is. >> i'm exhausted from that. i couldn't wait to see about whom you were talking. i really owe you a terrible or real apology because you were sweet when i came in absolutely ignorant of most of the social media and said i don't know what all this tweeting or thatting or twittering or whatever it is and

you wised me up. actually -- put me on twitter is it? >> john: twitter. the reason i did it is because twitter, i think, is the most ideal social media system for what you do. for your -- witticisms. if groucho were alive today, he would own twitter. it is so suited for your tight pointed, one-liners. what have i got to do? it has been so long. >> i'll tell you what though, because of you in this interim which i have neglected your shepherding me into it and really disgraced myself -- >> john: yes. >> every so often i think here's a line. i've got nowhere to put it. i'll save it for my next times blog but that's two weeks off. if i had twitter, i would probably put -- what happened the other day? people like cardinal mahoney make me fervently wish there's a

hell. >> stephanie: cardinal mahoney better hope there is no god. that is what twitter is perfect for is for the kind of humor you do. you can reach so many people. >> you can. it doesn't have to be political. it can be just home jokes for the whole family like two men who put their heads together and made an ass of themselves. the bald men. let me redo that one. how about those short skirts? [ laughter ] >> john: it was a fine joke. >> i don't believe i blew a good one-liner on the show. >> john: i want to talk to you about joke writing. you've written for the best. why is it so important to inject humor into the delivery of news events? >> i don't think it is important but it certainly helps. in the sense that news events could stand on their own. news is frantically drearily

without humor most of the time. and it just -- except for the nbc anchor on channel 4. do you know that young man? >> john: i don't. which one? >> evening news anchor on channel 4. >> john: i don't watch tv anymore because i live in this building. >> his name is brian. is that a hint? >> john: brian williams. >> yeah! >> john: of course. he has a tan in december. who doesn't know brian williams. very funny guy. >> he occasionally gets one in a lot of the country doesn't get and yet it doesn't look like he's trying to be funny. he is hilariously funny. not to slide off your question entirely. sometimes i think there must be other subjects that half an hour of comic television could be about other than politics. >> >> john: of course. you won't beat stuart and colbert. there has never been any time

where there were two such intelligent comics. >> john: you've got bill maher as well. >> maher needs a longer show. i got in trouble once, not with maher. we're old buddies. but yeah, he certainly does politics and makes it so nobody really needs to in that kind of format. anyhow fallon, jimmy fallon gets off some wonderful lines of that sort. and jimmy kimmel, too. >> john: billy wilder said if you're going to tell people the truth, make it funny or they'll kill you. >> that's good. >> john: by the end of the play, the only guy king lear trusts is the fool. don't you think that when the people trust their humor more -- their politics more if you can make them laugh because there has to be an element of truth in something for it to be funny. >> i think so.

i didn't know you were going to bring in king lear on me. >> john: i like to keep it light. >> a family show. >> let's not fail to give credit to that faultless delivery man david letterman. i think any subject can be a subject for humor. i was once told by an editor of -- i almost said the major newspaper but you know where i work -- of a column of some sort or letter saying that my summation could not be used because there are subjects who can't joke about it. i didn't write back but i wish i had. that will come as news to mark twain and jonathan swift and our friends, we've already mentioned and charlie chaplain and a few others. there's nothing about any subject that can't be humor. it could be bad taste humor as we learned. quite often.

>> john: i think you're right. can you stick around for the next block? >> what's in it for me? >> john: you'll find out. more assaults than doing stand-up. >> mort is the genius of my lifetime. he got to see him when he came shooting like a meteor across the sky. >> john: he's still doing it. dick cavett. >> said about brooks brothers. he said it is a strange store. they have no mirrors but they will place another customer in front of you. [ laughter ] >> john: i have to go to my dear beloved partner joy behar to find out what's coming up on "say anything." are you there? >> joy: thanks, john. next on "say anything," i'll talk with '80s icon pia zadora she got a lot of heat for a much older rich man who helped bankroll her career. were you pushed into the marriage? >> my mother -- i think my

mother -- she wanted to marry him so i married him. she married him vicariously through me. basically, she encouraged me to do it because she wanted the security and she adored him. >> john: we'll talk love and relationships with curb your enthusiasm's susie essman. my political roundtable weighs in on chris christie's views who said that christie might drop dead in office if he doesn't slim down. more "viewpoint" with john fuglesang right after this.

>> john: i'm honored to be back here with dick cavett. >> there were these two bald guys. >> john: this is part of my sinister plot to make. >> regular on this show. you want to do commentary, come on, hang out. >> here's john. >> john: you know what? i tried that once and ed mcmahon got very upset. >> poor ed. >> john: rest in peace. he was a really great guy. >> i liked ed. >> john: we're talking before about where people get their news. according to a poll this week,

fox news is now the most trusted name in news and the least trusted name in news. >> by the same person? >> john: by the same poll. after they got the presidential election so wrong and so many regional elections so wrong dick, why do you think people would still trust fox as fervently as they do? >> i don't know. you have to turn to karl rove to get the right predictions on an election, i thought don't you? >> john: that was amazing. that was like porn for moral people watching karl rove melt down like that. >> yeah, i applauded myself out of the room. i'm not the kind of person to answer that because i don't have any idea -- i've never -- what is it, no accounting for taste. i've never understood how some of the dumbest charlatan sappy-looking politicians in this country enter the hearts of their viewers, their constituents, their others. how long can you go without

seeing mitch mcconnell's pretty face? >> john: oh, well, i have a turtle fetish so it is tough for me. >> we did not rehearse that. >> john: i would say we're in the golden age of niche news. where you don't go to hear cronkite tell you that's the way it is, folks. you tune in to hear people tell what you it is you want to hear. that's why fox news will never go broke. telling people about things since the clinton impeachment -- >> they're already inlaid in the people. >> john: they have lots of great, real newspeople. there are great newspeople in the daytime hours. the evening is telling folks who has been wrong about anyone since nixon that they've been right about everything. >> they have one too many blonds whose hair looks breakable. >> john: they lost sarah palin, the only nonblond they had. >> of all of the columns i wrote in the three years that are

represented there, the one line that people quote from all of the columns is one about her. >> john: what was it? >> she seems to have no first language. >> john: would you say she's the perfect celebrity for our age? ronald reagan went from celebrity to politics. she used politics to try to become a celebrity. >> yes, it works both ways. and no one knows why. i stood once in the pressroom of the white house and heard the president of the united states, ronald reagan, do eight to ten jokes about me written for the press, it was press night. it was the strangest sensation. well, dick be's getting a little shorter each year. and then the bast -- then he left before i did my thing. i thought i wish i had known, i would have walked out on his

act. he had to go to bed and watch "the sound of music" again i guess. >> john: were you surprised that reagan became president knowing him as you did? >> not entirely, no. i didn't know him at all before that except as the host of not wagon train but guns -- theatre. then i knew the fact that he had -- was a boy in uniform during the war. in california. >> john: yes indeed. he wore a uniform on film sets. >> he protected us from the wild palm trees. i don't know. he was an amazing man. his delivery was faultless. he knew his way around a line. and it was just -- the other president whose voice uttered my name of course can be seen on youtube for those who will not believe what i'm about to say which might include you. if you go to youtube and put in dick cavett richard nixon, you can see the head of the free world say to his h. r., cavett.

how can we screw him? [ laughter ] >> some will think i'm making that up. if you don't believe me, go to youtube. >> john: that was pretty rare that he actually -- it is shocking to think nixon had enemies. >> i know. how could he? i had offended him in various ways including the fact that when lennon had me maintain he needn't be deported by the nixon white house that i did and they were not pleased with that. and several other things. but hearing the president -- nixon liked among other things, i won't say his name again the great unindicted co-conspirator loved to -- as you know, illegally punish people with the i.r.s. he did that to my staff. >> john: oh. >> wealthy people. >> john: that shows how much

confidence he had in his point of view. >> still dead. >> john: i see him at mets games all the time. some more after the break. what john brennan didn't say at his hearing today because nobody even asked him. my commentary coming up next. with accident forgiveness, they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. [ voice of dennis ] indeed. are you in good hands?

>> john: what did you think of john brennan's grilling today? >> i only saw the end of it. in the evening, i saw michael isikoff saying "well, that was a -- what he said was he never once uttered the word "drones" and the pitiful questioners never got it out of him and these hearings are sometimes truth and sometimes not. this one was not. >> john: that brings me to tonight's f bomb commentary mr. cavett. >> go. >> john: tonight, thank you today we got to watch the john brennan confirmation hearings for c.i.a. director. i gotta say he came off as the

most thoughtful, reflecting man who could also kill you with his bare hands. john brennan was like all of the members of the fantastic four rolled into one. he looks like the thing. he talks like reed richards. he can set things on fire halfway across the world and he knows how to make c.i.a. docs invisible. i know the media has been trumpeting bombings enjoy widespread support. so does honey boo-boo and that doesn't make it right. it is the future of warfare whether we like it or not. personally i think anybody who wants to send machines into battle for us needs to watch the first three terminator films but i was surprised no one asked mr. brennan about how drone bombs don't just kill america haters, they create new ones. i was surprised why all adult males are considered combatants and that's why they keep the death numbers so low. i was surprised no one asked him about the c.i.a.'s new definition of the word imminent for all of the imminent threats. turns out all they have to do is think you might be